Homosexuality...

[Green Gaia]

Nope... I'm pretty sure thinking of England is a perversion too...

 

[Lightkeeper]

This may have been said, but what about the homosexual couples that never have sex. Some are together just for the love and companionship. This also occurs in the heterosexual world. I think lesbians are tolerated more than gays, but lesbians have faced violent attacks and ridicule. Remember Brandon Teena? (Hillary Swank in Boys Don't Cry)

 

[Green Gaia]

Remember Brandon Teena? (Hillary Swank in Boys Don't Cry)

Yeah, but he was transgendered, (if I'm remembering the story correctly), who have it even worse than gay men, imo.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Yeah, but he was transgendered, (if I'm remembering the story correctly), who have it even worse than gay men, imo.

I'll agree with you, there. I was shocked when one of my gay friends began making fun of transgendered and bi people. (The guy was nice, but a bit closed-minded.)

And, if I might suggest, please consider another phrase besides 'pagan society'. It's a bit like saying 'Jewish square-dancing' or 'Muslim tea ceremony', except with a negative connotation. We may have an easy-going approach to spirituality, but... well, I found a proverb from the Shawnee tribe that fits my thoughts perfectly. "Trouble no man about his religion- respect him in his views and demand that he respect yours."

I would never demand, but I would ask politely. My faith is worthy of respect.

 

[Lycan]

And, if I might suggest, please consider another phrase besides 'pagan society'.

IMHO -
Considering the numerous pagans I know are tolerant, loving, wonderful people, a 'pagan society' would be a step in the right direction.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellus-evangellus, I still don't understand why you associate gay men with anal sex so much. Many gay couples don't even have anal sex...Heh. And after you have both anal and vaginal sex, you may tell me which is more 'painful and unnatural' *grin*

But as always, Feathers is right. Science has little or nothing to do with ethics.

Researchers are completely divided on the 'gay gene' idea. But regardless...

'Unmasking sexual perversion...' Okay, so we've unmasked it. We understand that you consider it perverse. But the fact that YOU think it's a perversion doesn't mean everyone does.

As we can see, sexual ethics is a wide topic and there are several points of view. It is pretty much "open season" and we can see that any opinion is pretty much fair game.

I recognize that what "I" think is perverse doesn't mean everyone should consider it perverse. However, we can see that each of us are drawing conclusions from similar sources. That is, in our logic and descision making process, we draw information from various sources: mainly human testimony (this feels good, this gave me an orgasm, porn, movies, ethics, philosophy, pshychology, etc etc etc), religion, and personal experience. I draw my knowledge from similar sources, and as a Christian, I see the testimony that I have, namely the NT and even the OT as a testimony that is no less valid than any other source. Because I think that the nature of sex has to be revealed (that is, God tells us how we are to relate to one another sexually - we can't get to this revelation by knowledge of experience, we have to be told), I see it as illogical to create sexually related laws that are not widely accepted sexual mores. That is, most of us don't want our children sexually abused, so it is illegal. However, anal sex is almost universally acceptable (so it seems here), so people should be free to do what they want with their bodies as long as we can't agree that it does measurable harm.

I have associated anal sex with male homosexuality because from my knowledge and experience, it is widely glorified in this type of sexuality. That is, in my reading, knowledge from homosexual friends, and from various other media, I concluded that anal sex is a major aspect of male homosexuality, and aversion to that may IMHO be why male homosexuals are looked down upon more in society - which was the topic of the thread. Yet from our beneficial dialouge, I can add to this experiece.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I must add that science does have alot to do with ethics, particularly biomedical and reproductive ethics. The entire reason why we have ethics of human cloning and stem cell research is because science is moving faster than ethics can fomulate. That is, discoveries in science must be dealt with in ethics - new abilities, discoveries, advancement, and medical treatments must be reviewed- we need to determine how to ethically apply what we learn. Therefore, science has a direct effect on ethics, and in fact, it is almost like marriage. We have reproductive ethics because science is moving boldly onward in this area. In biomedical ethics, we determine how treatments (science) are to be ethically applied, withdrawn, and dissemenated (here is where ethical principles of justice, doing good, not doing wrong, etc are effected). Science can tell us where there is harm and where there is no harm, which effects ethics. We see science making an impact on social ethics as pshychologists demonstrate a standard of harm for certain situations - like the ethical argument for prison reform, social reform, the reconstruction of government housing projects. Science in its various forms is constantly used in ethical arguments.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

IMHO -
Considering the numerous pagans I know are tolerant, loving, wonderful people, a 'pagan society' would be a step in the right direction.

Yes, I did not intend to use "pagan" in a derogatory manner. Many folks here in RF proudly call themselves pagans and are very nice folks. However, if it appears derogatory coming from a Christian, then I will gladly use different terms.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Yes, I did not intend to use "pagan" in a derogatory manner. Many folks here in RF proudly call themselves pagans and are very nice folks. However, if it appears derogatory coming from a Christian, then I will gladly use different terms.

It's not at all that it's only derogatory coming from a Christian (especially one so wonderful and tolerant as you've usually proven to be)- it's just one of those common phrases that's inadvertantly offensive but has also slipped its way into everyday speech.

Either way, back on topic (sorry for veering off!)!
I appreciate you being willing to learn from others' experience (I've had to do that a lot- lacking experience in so many areas). I think that's one of the wondeful things about RF is that it pools so much knowledge together.

 

[Melody]

Why is female homosexuality considered "not as bad" as male homosexuality?

I personally don't have a problem with either, but I have read serveral posts on homosexuality and it seems that the hang up is with gay men, with very little disagreeable remarks about gay women, why is this?

My husband says people would be less homophobic about males if it weren't for the "ick" factor. The sexual relationship between two women is thought to be titillating for many people. When they think of the practices of a male couple, they say "ick".

 

[Feathers in Hair]

When they think of the practices of a male couple, they say "ick".

True, unless they're heterosexual females. Then, sometimes they view them with the same interest that some men show to lesbian couples. (I stress the 'sometimes' in that sentence.)

 

[prash4]

I know this is a very crude opinion of mine regarding gays and lesbians, but here goes:

Think of it from a spritual point of view:
- Men are born to SEEK sexual desire
- Women are born to SATISFY sexual desire

This implies that only a woman can actually satisfy a person's sexual desires whereas, men can only seek them & can generally not satisfy them.

So, even if a woman is having sex with another woman, she is still satisfying her sexual desires. So, even if it's perverted, it's quite OK. Whereas, there is no such 'satisfaction' when a man ***** another man.

But then again, this is a very crude opinion of mine.

Mod Edit ***Crude

 

[Lycan]

This implies that only a woman can actually satisfy a person's sexual desires whereas, men can only seek them & can generally not satisfy them

My boyfriend satisfies my sexual desires quite well thank you.

 

[painted wolf]

I have to say that I often seek and my male often satisfies

And my gay male friends are quite satisfied with one another:bonk:

wa:do

 

[Jaymes]

I dunno, prash, I think I'm pretty good at seeking, as is my girlfriend.

I also asked a gay male friend of mine about your 'gay males and satisfaction' comment, and he responded thus: "there is quite a bit of satisfaction between gay males, thank you very much."

 

[jewscout]

...But then again, this is a very crude opinion of mine.

yes that is VERY true...:sarcastic

 

[jewscout]

Think of it from a spritual point of view:
- Men are born to SEEK sexual desire
- Women are born to SATISFY sexual desire

This implies that only a woman can actually satisfy a person's sexual desires whereas, men can only seek them & can generally not satisfy them.

actually...in a spiritual sense ....for jews it is the man's job to do the satisfying...not the other way around...

 

[prash4]

I told y'all it was a crude opinion... now I'm outta here!

 

[Lightkeeper]

I know this is a very crude opinion of mine regarding gays and lesbians, but here goes:

Think of it from a spritual point of view:
- Men are born to SEEK sexual desire
- Women are born to SATISFY sexual desire

This seems far from spiritual. Spiritual would be equality and isn't selfserving.

 

[Lycan]

The intention, which seems to be missed, of the original question was directed toward, more or less, the bible or religion. It seems that some people use bible passages or religious beliefs to condemn homosexuality, with homosexual males usually being the target. I was wondering why female homosexuality isn't normally view as being as "sinful" as male homosexuality.
This disregarding the "ick" factor.